I like the idea behind this. There are soooo many secondary and tertiary issues that get so tied up in everything that people get confused on what exactly it is that YAC is trying to say. I can think of 10 examples right off hand ( th-cam.com/video/hBlqoMBy3GI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ekBnKWEvlzQDxe93 ). Not to be critical, but constructive from a place of love and respect, there were a few places where your wording seemed to imply choosing your interpretation of the text based on wanting YAC to be true, rather than following the testimony of Scripture to the right conclusion. I know that's NOT how you approach it or what you meant, so I thought you might like to know. 12:57 & 15:13 are the spots that jumped out at me. Great stuff! I love the channel. Looking forward to the book. Keep up the good work!
Hey dude! Thanks so much for the feedback. Very helpful. Yes, of course, totally not what I am trying to say at all. So I appreciate you pointing that out.
No, there are people who called been called “young earth evolutionists” by a couple of the big creation ministries. That’s what I’m pushing back against.
I like the idea of "mere YAC." I understand why you put animal death before sin outside of the main tenets, but I would say that without the issue of death before sin, the theological argument for YAC loses a lot of its punch. Yes, you can argue that it is important for maintaining a grammatical-historical hermaneutic, but the issue of death before sin seems like an issue of more far-reaching consequences than just the issue of taking the days and genealogies at face value.
Hey Caleb!! Yeah, I totally see your point and opinion here. I FOR SURE agree with you. Death before sin is an important theological argument for young age creationism. To me, the question is, “Could young age creationism still be true even if one did not believe in death before sin?” The answer is yes, it seems to me. This does raise another question that others have brought up as well, the question of essentially how utilitarian are we about what it means to a YAC. Are we talking LITERALLY about a timeframe or a theological position. *As it relates to creation SCIENCE*, it seems to me to be the former. OF COURSE the theological underpinnings are extremely important. But once one has decided the text teaches young age creationism, regardless of other theological persuasions, can one be a contributor to the project of creation science? If we answer no, we essentially turn off an important valve in the history of creationism-the SDA church. As a BAPTIST, that valve, for me, is turned off. As a CREATIONIST, tho, it is not. Would love your thoughts on that!
@winsomecreationist , those are good thoughts. As someone who attends an SDA school (as a Baptist), I've had to develop that same perspective. Lots of SDA creationists are doing important scientific work, which I appreciate. At the same time, I would consider official SDA doctrine outside of the realm of theological orthodoxy.
I like the idea of the book and I think you are senior to me in that topic. So I doubt my input on how to categorize stuff is relevant. As I usually just listen to your youtube video, I don't see any reason why I should oppose to you not looking at the camera. If it brings benefits then go for it.
11:55 I think Islam also has something similar to that chronology. But it is like everything else in Islam, a bad copy of the orginal without actually understanding why it is done in Judaisma and Christianity.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think the concept of "mere young age creationism" is as misguided as the concept of "mere Christianity" is. The source of division and conflict in the creationist movement is not that too many things have been added on to what it means to be a young age creationist, though that has been a result. The source of division is that few will recognize the fundamental importance of hermeneutics to "rightly dividing the word of truth". Instead, the "big tent" approach has led to welcoming anyone who is willing to say the Earth was created in six 24-hour days less than 10k years ago, regardless of the hermeneutics they used to reach that conclusion. As a result, when it comes to trying to understand literally any other aspect of the text, starting with the very first verse of the Bible, there is a huge amount of disagreement. Why should we be surprised? We have a movement with Presbyterians, Charismatics, and Baptists (which I mention solely because they represent fundamentally different hermeneutical methods) in it, and as much as we might like to say everyone can just ignore the very real fundamental differences that exist between those groups, that isn't actually possible. If we all began with a clear understanding that a normative (i.e., grammatical-historical) hermeneutic is correct (not to mention involving more theologians in our research efforts, as Bill Barrick strongly emphasized in his ICC talk), then we would have a standard outside of ourselves by which our interpretation of Scripture could be judged. This would enable us to have more clarity on what Scripture is and is not saying and thereby more clearly delineate when a disagreement is over the text of Scripture, and when it is over some scientific conclusion. But this isn't happening, and won't any time soon because ever since the Donatist controversy of 300s, Christians have generally elevated unity over doctrinal truth, and the ironic result is increased division and conflict.
Hey dude! As always, appreciate the thoughtful reply. You for sure have a sophisticated and nuanced position here. Which, I mean for the record, I don’t disagree with. I’m not sure it’s entirely exclusive of what I mean by Mere Creationism, tho. This harkens back to the private correspondence we recently had about CRS. For me this is less a point of direct disagreement with you than it is a point of being undecided. I’m just not sure how many doctrinal boundaries we should be drawing *as it relates to the issue of creationism.* Obviously, as a Baptist, I am going to draw very distinct doctrinal boundaries from a Presbyterian. But I grew about *essentially* being taught that if you weren’t a fundamentalist Baptist, you weren’t a Christian. Having since abandoned that idea and resigning myself to the belief that I will be in the afterlife with Christians who wildly disagreed with me on the particulars, that gives me great caution in drawing tight boundaries around an issue such as this as well. I’m not staying we have zero standards, of course. I surely don’t mean that. In other words, I just think we’re dealing with two different things. Perhaps you are right about the “true” source of division, and that ought to be explored further. But it CERTAINLY manifests in particular ministries calling “shibboleth” whenever someone comes along who disagrees. That’s what I’m pushing back against. And I have some solutions in the book and will talk more about them on the pod cas well.
@@winsomecreationist I will admit that I'm much more willing to accept the label "fundamentalist" than you are, though with the qualification that it should be the "fundamentalism" of the "divisive" stage, not the "separatist" stage described in the article titled "The 4 Phases of Protestant Fundamentalism in America" by the Gospel Coalition (I'd provide a link, but I think links are blocked?). The point is, making sharp distinctions between truth and error. While we should be willing to acknowledge that there are many who disagree sharply with us on many issues who are nonetheless Christians on their way to heaven, the truth can get difficult to discern when genuine Christians are willing to associate themselves with non-Christians who promote false doctrine. We should absolutely pick our battles carefully, and I agree with you that AiG and others deserve significant criticism, but I think that others also deserve criticism as well. AiG and others deserve criticism because they are making the same mistake of the "separatist" fundamentalists by effectively add to Scripture (something for which Scripture gives pretty harsh condemnations). However, others also deserve equal criticism because by creating doubt about what Scripture says, they are effectively removing things from Scripture (something for which Scripture also gives pretty harsh condemnations). We should be unapologetically and boldly calling out the error of all those who stray from the clear text of Scripture.
8:56 God IS loving! But the "God" of the Old Testament is vengeful, jealous, bloodthirsty, cruel, genocidal, etc. There are only TWO possibilities concerning the O.T. description of "God": It's simply WRONG, perhaps a fabrication, a projection of the worst attributes of a savage People, unto their imaginings of what the Deity is, OR, the truthful portrayal of a real MONSTER!
Evolution is not an argument against God. Arguments against religion are not arguments against God. Would you understand the atheist logical fallacy to not lie to your own innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I challenge you to understand why the most emblematic remark of atheism is "who created god?", that means "who created what is not created?". I encourage you to read Spinoza to understand reality. The kalam cosmological argument proves logically God exists: what has a beginning of existence has a cause because from nothing can not be created something. Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that created what has a beginning of existence must exist. Did you understand why God exists? God exists because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. God exists because logically not all reality can be created or have a beginning of existence. Your understanding is your salvation. I am trying to overcome an unjust censorship. To overcome a censorship the information that is prohibited has to be shared to be known. Why humanity censor knowledge? Who benefits censoring knowledge and what are the consequences of censoring knowledge?. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Emergency! Thank you.
There is an absurd assumption that seems to be accepted by a majority of people in the Theist vs Atheist debate, ie, that "God" is the "God of the Bible," and if you do not believe in that Entity, you're an Atheist. Haven't these people studied ANY World religion, beyond the Abrahamic ones? Or are they capable, even, of employing simple logic?
I kinda like the not looking at the camera. It helps me do the things I actually need to do. lol
LOL! Thanks for sharing. So funny, the only comments I’ve gotten about it have been positive. Awesome.
Your book sounds good; I will buy it.
Thank you!!
I like the video format 👍🏼
Thank you! Encouraging to hear because it felt WAY better to record. I thought for sure people would hate. Never know until you try!!!
I like the idea behind this. There are soooo many secondary and tertiary issues that get so tied up in everything that people get confused on what exactly it is that YAC is trying to say. I can think of 10 examples right off hand ( th-cam.com/video/hBlqoMBy3GI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ekBnKWEvlzQDxe93 ).
Not to be critical, but constructive from a place of love and respect, there were a few places where your wording seemed to imply choosing your interpretation of the text based on wanting YAC to be true, rather than following the testimony of Scripture to the right conclusion. I know that's NOT how you approach it or what you meant, so I thought you might like to know. 12:57 & 15:13 are the spots that jumped out at me.
Great stuff! I love the channel. Looking forward to the book. Keep up the good work!
Hey dude! Thanks so much for the feedback. Very helpful. Yes, of course, totally not what I am trying to say at all. So I appreciate you pointing that out.
@@winsomecreationist
No problem. I speak publicly multiple times a week. I am sure I have committed far worse rhetorical transgressions.
Did you say that there exist YEC evolutionists? Is that true, or did I misunderstand you? Thank you
No, there are people who called been called “young earth evolutionists” by a couple of the big creation ministries. That’s what I’m pushing back against.
I like the idea of "mere YAC." I understand why you put animal death before sin outside of the main tenets, but I would say that without the issue of death before sin, the theological argument for YAC loses a lot of its punch. Yes, you can argue that it is important for maintaining a grammatical-historical hermaneutic, but the issue of death before sin seems like an issue of more far-reaching consequences than just the issue of taking the days and genealogies at face value.
Hey Caleb!! Yeah, I totally see your point and opinion here. I FOR SURE agree with you. Death before sin is an important theological argument for young age creationism. To me, the question is, “Could young age creationism still be true even if one did not believe in death before sin?” The answer is yes, it seems to me.
This does raise another question that others have brought up as well, the question of essentially how utilitarian are we about what it means to a YAC. Are we talking LITERALLY about a timeframe or a theological position. *As it relates to creation SCIENCE*, it seems to me to be the former. OF COURSE the theological underpinnings are extremely important. But once one has decided the text teaches young age creationism, regardless of other theological persuasions, can one be a contributor to the project of creation science? If we answer no, we essentially turn off an important valve in the history of creationism-the SDA church. As a BAPTIST, that valve, for me, is turned off. As a CREATIONIST, tho, it is not.
Would love your thoughts on that!
@winsomecreationist , those are good thoughts. As someone who attends an SDA school (as a Baptist), I've had to develop that same perspective. Lots of SDA creationists are doing important scientific work, which I appreciate. At the same time, I would consider official SDA doctrine outside of the realm of theological orthodoxy.
I like the idea of the book and I think you are senior to me in that topic. So I doubt my input on how to categorize stuff is relevant.
As I usually just listen to your youtube video, I don't see any reason why I should oppose to you not looking at the camera. If it brings benefits then go for it.
Thank you!!
11:55 I think Islam also has something similar to that chronology. But it is like everything else in Islam, a bad copy of the orginal without actually understanding why it is done in Judaisma and Christianity.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think the concept of "mere young age creationism" is as misguided as the concept of "mere Christianity" is. The source of division and conflict in the creationist movement is not that too many things have been added on to what it means to be a young age creationist, though that has been a result. The source of division is that few will recognize the fundamental importance of hermeneutics to "rightly dividing the word of truth". Instead, the "big tent" approach has led to welcoming anyone who is willing to say the Earth was created in six 24-hour days less than 10k years ago, regardless of the hermeneutics they used to reach that conclusion. As a result, when it comes to trying to understand literally any other aspect of the text, starting with the very first verse of the Bible, there is a huge amount of disagreement. Why should we be surprised? We have a movement with Presbyterians, Charismatics, and Baptists (which I mention solely because they represent fundamentally different hermeneutical methods) in it, and as much as we might like to say everyone can just ignore the very real fundamental differences that exist between those groups, that isn't actually possible.
If we all began with a clear understanding that a normative (i.e., grammatical-historical) hermeneutic is correct (not to mention involving more theologians in our research efforts, as Bill Barrick strongly emphasized in his ICC talk), then we would have a standard outside of ourselves by which our interpretation of Scripture could be judged. This would enable us to have more clarity on what Scripture is and is not saying and thereby more clearly delineate when a disagreement is over the text of Scripture, and when it is over some scientific conclusion. But this isn't happening, and won't any time soon because ever since the Donatist controversy of 300s, Christians have generally elevated unity over doctrinal truth, and the ironic result is increased division and conflict.
Hey dude! As always, appreciate the thoughtful reply.
You for sure have a sophisticated and nuanced position here. Which, I mean for the record, I don’t disagree with. I’m not sure it’s entirely exclusive of what I mean by Mere Creationism, tho. This harkens back to the private correspondence we recently had about CRS. For me this is less a point of direct disagreement with you than it is a point of being undecided. I’m just not sure how many doctrinal boundaries we should be drawing *as it relates to the issue of creationism.* Obviously, as a Baptist, I am going to draw very distinct doctrinal boundaries from a Presbyterian. But I grew about *essentially* being taught that if you weren’t a fundamentalist Baptist, you weren’t a Christian. Having since abandoned that idea and resigning myself to the belief that I will be in the afterlife with Christians who wildly disagreed with me on the particulars, that gives me great caution in drawing tight boundaries around an issue such as this as well.
I’m not staying we have zero standards, of course. I surely don’t mean that. In other words, I just think we’re dealing with two different things. Perhaps you are right about the “true” source of division, and that ought to be explored further. But it CERTAINLY manifests in particular ministries calling “shibboleth” whenever someone comes along who disagrees. That’s what I’m pushing back against. And I have some solutions in the book and will talk more about them on the pod cas well.
@@winsomecreationist I will admit that I'm much more willing to accept the label "fundamentalist" than you are, though with the qualification that it should be the "fundamentalism" of the "divisive" stage, not the "separatist" stage described in the article titled "The 4 Phases of Protestant Fundamentalism in America" by the Gospel Coalition (I'd provide a link, but I think links are blocked?). The point is, making sharp distinctions between truth and error. While we should be willing to acknowledge that there are many who disagree sharply with us on many issues who are nonetheless Christians on their way to heaven, the truth can get difficult to discern when genuine Christians are willing to associate themselves with non-Christians who promote false doctrine.
We should absolutely pick our battles carefully, and I agree with you that AiG and others deserve significant criticism, but I think that others also deserve criticism as well. AiG and others deserve criticism because they are making the same mistake of the "separatist" fundamentalists by effectively add to Scripture (something for which Scripture gives pretty harsh condemnations). However, others also deserve equal criticism because by creating doubt about what Scripture says, they are effectively removing things from Scripture (something for which Scripture also gives pretty harsh condemnations).
We should be unapologetically and boldly calling out the error of all those who stray from the clear text of Scripture.
8:56 God IS loving! But the "God" of the Old Testament is vengeful, jealous, bloodthirsty, cruel, genocidal, etc. There are only TWO possibilities concerning the O.T. description of "God": It's simply WRONG, perhaps a fabrication, a projection of the worst attributes of a savage People, unto their imaginings of what the Deity is, OR, the truthful portrayal of a real MONSTER!
Theres no evidence for creation
Evolution is not an argument against God. Arguments against religion are not arguments against God. Would you understand the atheist logical fallacy to not lie to your own innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I challenge you to understand why the most emblematic remark of atheism is "who created god?", that means "who created what is not created?". I encourage you to read Spinoza to understand reality. The kalam cosmological argument proves logically God exists: what has a beginning of existence has a cause because from nothing can not be created something. Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that created what has a beginning of existence must exist. Did you understand why God exists? God exists because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. God exists because logically not all reality can be created or have a beginning of existence. Your understanding is your salvation. I am trying to overcome an unjust censorship. To overcome a censorship the information that is prohibited has to be shared to be known. Why humanity censor knowledge? Who benefits censoring knowledge and what are the consequences of censoring knowledge?. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Emergency! Thank you.
There is an absurd assumption that seems to be accepted by a majority of people in the Theist vs Atheist debate, ie, that "God" is the "God of the Bible," and if you do not believe in that Entity, you're an Atheist. Haven't these people studied ANY World religion, beyond the Abrahamic ones? Or are they capable, even, of employing simple logic?